Dataset Information

Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice.

ABSTRACT: There is increasing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e., tunnel and cupping), tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Despite this evidence, there are still research organisations that continue to use tail handling. Here, we investigated handling for routine husbandry by three different methods: tail, cupping and tube in a relevant real-world scenario involving mice bred off-site. After transfer to the destination unit, mice were assessed for overt behaviours associated with anxiety and fear. Mice that experienced tail handling were less easy to handle, were more responsive to the box opening, and scored lower in a hand approach test. One barrier to non-tail handling methods is the current practice of restraining mice by the tail for procedures. We therefore next assessed whether a modified method for restraint that takes the animal from cupping to restraint without the use of the tail was associated with better welfare. This refined restraint method reduced overt signs of distress although we did not find any differences in corticosterone levels or anxiety-related behaviours. These findings suggest that avoiding tail handling throughout the animal's laboratory experience, including during restraint, benefits their welfare.

SUBMITTER: Davies JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9454836 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice.

Davies Jennifer R JR Purawijaya Dandri A DA Bartlett Julia M JM Robinson Emma S J ESJ

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20220824 17

There is increasing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e., tunnel and cupping), tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Despite this evidence, there are still research organisations that continue to use tail handling. Here, we investigated handling for routine husbandry by three different methods: tail, cupping and tube in a relevant real-world scenario involving mice bred off-site. After transfer to the destination unit, mice were assessed for overt behavi ...[more]

PMID: 36077894

Similar Datasets

Project description:Handling of laboratory mice is essential for experiments and husbandry, but handling can increase anxiety in mice, compromising their welfare and potentially reducing replicability between studies. The use of non-aversive handling (e.g., tunnel handling or cupping), rather than the standard method of picking mice up by the tail, has been shown to enhance interaction with a handler, reduce anxiety-like behaviours, and increase exploration and performance in standard behavioural tests. Despite this, some labs continue to use tail handling for routine husbandry, and the extent to which non-aversive methods are being used is currently unknown. Here we conducted an international online survey targeting individuals that work with and/or conduct research using laboratory mice. The survey aimed to identify the handling methods currently being used, and to determine common obstacles that may be preventing the wider uptake of non-aversive handling. We also surveyed opinions concerning the current data in support of non-aversive handling for mouse welfare and scientific outcomes. 390 complete responses were received and analysed quantitatively and thematically. We found that 35% report using tail handling only, and 43% use a combination of tail and non-aversive methods. 18% of respondents reported exclusively using non-aversive methods. The vast majority of participants were convinced that non-aversive handling improves animal welfare and scientific outcomes. However, the survey indicated that researchers were significantly less likely to have heard of non-aversive handling and more likely to use tail handling compared with animal care staff. Thematic analysis revealed there were concerns regarding the time required for non-aversive methods compared with tail handling, and that there was a perceived incompatibility of tunnel handling with restraint, health checks and other routine procedures. Respondents also highlighted a need for additional research into the impact of handling method that is representative of experimental protocols and physiological indicators used in the biomedical fields. This survey highlights where targeted research, outreach, training and funding may have the greatest impact on increasing uptake of non-aversive handling methods for laboratory mice.

Project description:Refined handling improves laboratory mouse welfare and research outcomes when compared to traditional tail handling, yet implementation does not seem to be widespread. Refined handling includes picking up a mouse using a tunnel or cupped hands. The aim of this study was to determine the current prevalence of and beliefs towards refined handling using the theory of planned behavior. It was predicted that refined handling prevalence is low compared to traditional handling methods, and its implementation is determined by individual and institutional beliefs. Research personnel were recruited via online convenience sampling through email listservs and social media. A total of 261 participants in diverse roles (e.g. veterinarians, managers, caretakers, researchers, etc.) responded primarily from the USA (79%) and academic institutions (61%) Participants were surveyed about their current use, knowledge, and beliefs about refined handling. Quantitative data were analyzed via descriptive statistics and generalised regression. Qualitative data were analyzed by theme. Research personnel reported low levels of refined handling implementation, with only 10% of participants using it exclusively and a median estimate of only 10% of institutional mice being handled with refined methods. Individually, participants had positive attitudes, neutral norms, and positive control beliefs about refined handling. Participants' intention to provide refined handling in the future was strongly associated with their attitudes, norms, and control beliefs (p<0.01). Participants believed barriers included jumpy mice, perceived incompatibility with restraint, lack of time, and other personnel. However, participants also believed refined handling was advantageous to mouse welfare, handling ease, personnel, and research. Although results from this survey indicate that current refined handling prevalence is low in this sample, personnel believe it has important benefits, and future use is associated with their beliefs about the practice. People who believed refined handling was good, felt pressure to use it, and were confident in their use reported higher implementation. Increased refined handling could be encouraged through education on misconceptions, highlighting advantages, and addressing important barriers.

Dataset Information

Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice.

Publications

Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets